The talk is not about JSON, I never mentioned it. JSON is a serialization format and it does not have to be "nice". The talk about the ability to do something.
As for use case, I have already described it: representing data in the same (familiar to user) layout as on Wikidata page. If you consider this use case unimportant or uncommon — well, OK then. At least I tried. Best regard, Vlad 2017-11-29 21:28 GMT+03:00 Thiemo Kreuz <[email protected]>: > > […] it turns out it lacks PLENTY of properties we usually work with. > From 1400+ properties we normally use, there are only 480 on this page > > This is intended. The list was originally created with the most common > properties, and can and should be expanded any time when the need to do so > arises. Unlisted properties will be moved to the end, in their original > order (as stored in the database). If you find specific properties that > should move up to one of the groups currently specified in > https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Wikibase-SortedProperties , go > ahead and suggest changes on the talk page. > > As for the suggestions in your other mail: Even if I can understand that a > more "nice" JSON would be – well – more "nice", I don't see what the > specific benefit of that would be. As long as no specific use case arises I > don't see a reason to invest resources in changing the current behavior. > > Best > Thiemo > > _______________________________________________ > Wikidata-tech mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-tech > >
_______________________________________________ Wikidata-tech mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-tech
